Conservatives Terrified of Bringing Terrorists to Justice

[shagdrum]

you can cite fundamental law shag... you can also cite organic law... both present in the Declaration of Independence, which is part of the US Code.
However the DOI does not create legislative law... so if you want to cite legislative law, you need to go elsewhere.

"Organic" or "fundamental" law is different then citable law (which is what you were originally asked about).

Again, what specific law is in the DOI? You haven't cited any, simply repeated an assertion that doesn't answer the challenge but confuses the issue to blur the distinction between the two; rhetoric aimed at distorting reality.

It is rather clear that, despite all your bravado, you do not understand what you are talking about. You misapplied the quote you originally posted and are trying to deflect to avoid that fact...

 

[foxpaws]

You want to start including the Declaration of Independence as citable law now?

Two (of many) cases where it has been cited as fundamental law...

Since I have mentioned it before (and since you wanted where the court cited the DOI in this case foss..) - from the Dred Scott case - Chief Justice Taney's opinion ( the opinion of the court)

"In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’

The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation."​

Recently the DOI was cited in the Nancy Cruzan case to argue if the persistence of her body should be considered 'life' as it is used in the Declaration of Independence.

And shag - there isn't any legislative law within the DOI - it is organic law. I have stated that before - but you can cite it... as shown above.

Now, shag - why don't you enlighten us, what exactly does Eidsmoe's statement mean, oh, that's right - you can't... just like you can't succinctly state your philosophy regarding unfettered capitalism...

 

[shagdrum]

You want to start including the Declaration of Independence as citable law now?

No, that is what you did in post #30. Already misrepresenting your own actions from a few posts ago, i see.

And shag - there isn't any legislative law within the DOI - it is organic law. I have stated that before - but you can cite it... as shown above.

Do you really think that simply because something is cited in a ruling, that makes it a law? The writings of many of the framers, thinkers, politicians and others have been cited in rules throughout history as well. Are those writings now law too? What about when someone's specific actions or past are cited in a ruling? Are those law too?

You still have not shown what specific laws (restrictions, statues) are in the DOI.

 

[foxpaws]

No, that is what you did in post #30. Already misrepresenting your own actions from a few posts ago, i see.

that was foss's question - the quotes didn't push through - I corrected it about 30 minutes before you posted...

It didn't take you over 30 minutes to pen post #53 did it?

Do you really think that simply because something is cited in a ruling, that makes it a law? The writings of many of the framers, thinkers, politicians and others have been cited in rules throughout history as well. Are those writings now law too? What about when someone's specific actions or past are cited in a ruling? Are those law too?

Nope - but in the 2 cases I used - Dred Scott and Nancy C it was cited as fundamental law...

You still have not shown what specific laws (restrictions, statues) are in the DOI.

Nor can I - it is fundamental, not legislative... I think this is the third, or maybe fourth time I have stated that - want it in all caps - italic - bold????

 

[shagdrum]

Nope - but in the 2 cases I used - Dred Scott and Nancy C it was cited as fundamental law...

Yet you failed to note the distinction between between fundamental law and legislative law in post #30. Given the context of fossten's original question what you were citing (metaphorical "law") was in no way the same thing he was referring to (literal law).

So either you didn't know the difference between fundamental and legislative law when you used the initial quote, or you were intentionally misleading; specifically by ignoring the difference between the two.

 

[foxpaws]

Yet you failed to note the distinction between between fundamental law and legislative law in post #30. Given the context of fossten's original question what you were citing (metaphorical "law") was in no way the same thing he was referring to (literal law).

So either you didn't know the difference between fundamental and legislative law when you used the initial quote, or you were intentionally misleading; specifically by ignoring the difference between the two.

Foss just stated law - he didn't make a distinction - blame him for not being more specific - We were talking about 'all man are created equal' in the DOI, and he was referring to that - obviously we were talking about fundamental rights - suddenly I am suppose to know that he has switched over to literal law. We weren't talking about legislative law at the time. Come on Shag - you can do better than this - it was very obvious what we were discussing, fundamental law...

 

[fossten]

Foss just stated law - he didn't make a distinction - blame him for not being more specific - We were talking about 'all man are created equal' in the DOI, and he was referring to that - obviously we were talking about fundamental rights - suddenly I am suppose to know that he has switched over to literal law. We weren't talking about legislative law at the time. Come on Shag - you can do better than this - it was very obvious what we were discussing, fundamental law...

Actually fox, it was closer to dicta.

Of course, the funny part is that the Court ruled AGAINST Dred Scott in this decision - much to the satisfaction of the Democrats, I might add.

 

[shagdrum]

Foss just stated law - he didn't make a distinction - blame him for not being more specific

He didn't need to. The context of what Fossten said (not what you were talking about) determines the nature of the term he was using. Fossten was drawing a distinction between the DOI and "citable law". The context was clear.

Weather you were ignorant of the difference between fundamental and legislative law or not, it is clear that you were simply looking to weasel your way out of criticism and deflect the argument back onto fossten by finding some context in which the DOI was "citable" as "law"; this negating his distinction.

 

[fossten]

Hey fox, if a Court ever references Monty Python and the Holy Grail, does that automatically make it citable law?

 

[foxpaws]

Actually fox, it was closer to dicta.

Of course, the funny part is that the Court ruled AGAINST Dred Scott in this decision - much to the satisfaction of the Democrats, I might add.

However - it does use the DOI as citable law... fundamental law, but law...

And I believe if your judge is John Cleese - you may use Monty Python as citable law...

“I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired of being told that I am”

 

[foxpaws]

He didn't need to. The context of what Fossten said (not what you were talking about) determines the nature of the term he was using. Fossten was drawing a distinction between the DOI and "citable law". The context was clear.

Weather you were ignorant of the difference between fundamental and legislative law or not, it is clear that you were simply looking to weasel your way out of criticism and deflect the argument back onto fossten by finding some context in which the DOI was "citable" as "law"; this negating his distinction.

Nope shag- I will let the evidence stand. We were talking about fundamental law within the DOI... you can try to spin it anyway you want, but that doesn't place the context any differently, nor the outcome. The DOI is used as citable law, fundamental law, but law nonetheless.

You just thought I couldn't come up with examples, or maybe you really didn't understand that little legal tidbit.

If you are going to proceed onto law school - a little advice - two things - learn to read entire arguments and acquire the ability to think on your feet... unless of course you find patent law fascinating.

 

[fossten]

KSM's lawyer says KSM will plead 'Not Guilty.'

Way to go, Messiah!

/s

 

[shagdrum]

We were talking about fundamental law within the DOI...

But that doesn't determine what fossten was talking about (which is what you were responding to). What fossten was talking about is determined by the context he used.

However - it does use the DOI as citable law... fundamental law, but law...

...which is irrelevant to what fossten was originally saying. He was not referring to metaphorical "law" (fundamental, organic). So, weather you knew it or not, your argument was equivocating and deceiving.

"Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)."​

 

[foxpaws]

But that doesn't determine what fossten was talking about (which is what you were responding to). What fossten was talking about is determined by the context he used.

Foss’s question…

You want to start including the Declaration of Independence as citable law now?​

Where he was responding to this statement of mine

And the Declaration of Independence doesn't say that all citizens are created equal, it very clearly states all men. And aren't they universal rights - or have somehow I been led astray? The founding fathers knew we should be treating all men equally... not just a chosen few.
​

This was my very first response to foss's question about citing DOI as citable law...

Or from Eidsmoe...

The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.​

As I said before- learn to read the entire argument…

I have always been talking about fundamental law – I stated it at the very, very beginning… just because you can’t read, doesn’t mean that you can label me as equivocating and deceiving… I have been claiming the exact same thing the entire time, because we were talking about fundamental law and the DOI – so I was saying you could cite it in court.

I guess it is patent law for you…

 

[shagdrum]

Foss’s question…

You want to start including the Declaration of Independence as citable law now?​

Where he was responding to this statement of mine

And the Declaration of Independence doesn't say that all citizens are created equal, it very clearly states all men. And aren't they universal rights - or have somehow I been led astray? The founding fathers knew we should be treating all men equally... not just a chosen few.
​

Fossten was drawing a distinction between the DOI and "citable" law (as he called it). He may have been doing it in a cynical manner, but his intention was clear.

You mislead through equivocation to deceptively negate that distinction.

 

[foxpaws]

Fossten was drawing a distinction between the DOI and "citable" law (as he called it). He may have been doing it in a cynical manner, but his intention was clear.

You mislead through equivocation to deceptively negate that distinction.

Once again shag - it isn't my fault you can't read - I have always been referring to fundamental law - and the only time the DOI had been referred to was my statement regarding it and universal rights. Foss didn't state that suddenly - or should I say cynically - he was going to go down the road of legislative law - I made myself very clear about what I was talking about - before and after his question regarding citable law - Foss didn't. I continued to be consistent, and continued to explain myself over and over again that I was referring to fundamental law, and how it has been cited in court cases with regards to the DOI.

You excuse his misdirection as 'cynical' yet, my argument, which has always been clearly stated and defined as dealing with the DOI and citing it as fundamental law, you label as being 'equivocating and deceiving'?

Well, I could certainly point out how hypocritical that is - or I could just imply how nice it must be to be Foss's lap dog...

Since you won't read this anyway, I guess I will go with the latter... bark, bark.

 

[fossten]

Hey fox, thanks for immortalizing my quote. I'm quite proud of it.

 

[shagdrum]

Once again shag - it isn't my fault you can't read - I have always been referring to fundamental law

Yet you never mentioned fundamental law before your response to his question nor, more importantly, in your initial response to his question...

Foss didn't state that suddenly - or should I say cynically - he was going to go down the road of legislative law - I made myself very clear about what I was talking about

Fossten was the first person to bring up law and he did so in a very specific context.

You only started referring to the DOI as a type of "law" when it could facilitate your attempt to weasel out of his distinction.

You excuse his misdirection as 'cynical' yet, my argument, which has always been clearly stated and defined as dealing with the DOI and citing it as fundamental law, you label as being 'equivocating and deceiving'?

So, his pointing out your attempt to obfuscate is somehow misdirection? I think that is called doublespeak.

Much as you want to inject the false premise that I can't or won't read something, your posts habitually ignore certain objections to your arguments (if it isn't misrepresenting them). Who is it who can't read?

 

[foxpaws]

Yet you never mentioned fundamental law before your response to his question nor, more importantly, in your initial response to his question...

I was the only one to bring up the DOI it and it was in regards to universal rights, fundamental law shags.... that was before Foss's question

Oh, in my initial response - once again Shag - learn to read...

The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.​

I even just now bolded it in post #64 - so you wouldn't continue to miss it...

Fossten was the first person to bring up law and he did so in a very specific context.

You only started referring to the DOI as a type of "law" when it could facilitate your attempt to weasel out of his distinction.

Once again - you might want to re-read my initial response.... post #30. He asked if the DOA was citable law - my response was that it was, in the context of fundamental law. I have been more than clear on this shag.

Much as you want to inject the false premise that I can't or won't read something, your posts habitually ignore certain objections to your arguments (if it isn't misrepresenting them). Who is it who can't read?

Well, since you just proved it once again Shag, your lack of reading acumen, I don't think there really is much question on who is actually reading and who isn't...

bark bark?

 

[shagdrum]

I was the only one to bring up the DOI it and it was in regards to universal rights, fundamental law shags.... that was before Foss's question

the DOI only serves as metaphorical "law" in certain specific instances. You were not citing it in that capacity before Fossten's question. You never even mentioned fundamental law before Fossten's question. You don't get to redefine the context of your own posts after the fact as you see fit.

Once again - you might want to re-read my initial response.... post #30. He asked if the DOA was citable law - my response was that it was, in the context of fundamental law. I have been more than clear on this shag.

He was referring to literal law and you referred to metaphorical "law". I have pointed that out numerous times and you have continued to miss that.

You were misleading through equivocation. This thread has gone on now for 2 pages because you keep trying to weasel your way out of confronting that fact.

Once again, you made this thread all about you. If I didn't know any better, I would think you were intentionally doing this do disrupt any honest discourse.

 

[foxpaws]

Ah, I see you have given up on your little tirade that I didn't mention fundamental law in my first response to Foss' question... nothing like posting 5 times to finally get you to read it...

You are the one that has dragged this out shag - if only you would read... all this would be solved in one or two posts...

You didn't mention fundamental law in your first response.
Yes I did - see?
Oh, so you did...

Perhaps patent law is going to be too big of a stretch - chasing ambulances perhaps?

 

[shagdrum]

Ah, I see you have given up on your little tirade that I didn't mention fundamental law in my first response to Foss' question... nothing like posting 5 times to finally get you to read it...

It doesn't change the fact that what you were equivocating in your response. To equivocate is to mislead.

But of course, you never acknowledge your clear attempts to deceive on this forum; even when called on them.

You are the one that has dragged this out shag - if only you would read... all this would be solved in one or two posts...

Now you are misrepresenting (lying by omission) what has been debated over the past two pages to deflect the criticism back at me? You really have no shame, do you...

I made one mistake in claiming you didn't refer to fundamental law in your response to Fossten. It is not the "game changer" you are opportunistically misrepresenting it as. The critique I am leveling is not negated by that fact and you know it.

 

[foxpaws]

It doesn't change the fact that what you were equivocating in your response. To equivocate is to mislead.

But of course, you never acknowledge when you clear attempts to deceive on this forum.

Stating right up front exactly how the DOI is cited in court is equivocating? I couldn't have been more clear - unless of course, you didn't happen to read my first response...

Now you are misrepresenting (lying by omission) what has been debated over the past two pages to deflect the criticism back at me? You really have no shame, do you...

And what have we been debating after the whole bringing KSM to New York for trial in criminal court? We were debating if the DOI is citable law in court. Had you actually read my first response you would have understood my stand - you didn't read it, or any of the myriad of other posts where I very clearly stated it is cited as fundamental law.

Your lack of reading skills is what has caused this whole problem shag - or maybe your dogginess to prove me wrong no matter what the cost. What was the cost in this case Shag? At best you appear to be an elitist that can't be bothered to actually read what I post... at the worse...

 

[shagdrum]

Stating right up front exactly how the DOI is cited in court is equivocating? I couldn't have been more clear - unless of course, you didn't happen to read my first response...

Do you not know what equivocating is? I linked to it and provided and explanation of it.

Stating how the DOI is cited in court does not disprove the claim of equivocating.

And what have we been debating after the whole bringing KSM to New York for trial in criminal court? We were debating if the DOI is citable law in court.

Another misrepresentation. We were debating weather what you claimed was actually a response to what fossten asked or not.

Your lack of reading skills is what has caused this whole problem shag

Actually, is seems to be either alack of understanding on your part of what I was saying, or your determination to weasel out of legitimate criticism that has caused this thread to go as long as it has.

I am curious; why do you attempt to deceive people here?

 

[foxpaws]

Shag - I am interested, why can't you admit you didn't read my post?